Global energy use may shift climate trends

Visit a power plant in winter and you can literally see the heat pouring out of it as the hot air of its exhaust mixes unevenly with the cold air around it. It's easy to convince yourself that the mere burning of fossil fuels, rather than the greenhouse gasses the burning releases, could be altering the climate. But the total energy released is rather small on a global scale, so researchers have largely treated it as a rounding error. A new paper suggests that, although power generation doesn't add much heat, it changes the way the heat is distributed. And this has surprisingly large effects in some areas.

It's possible to estimate the total global energy use from all sources, then compare that to the factors that are known to drive the climate (called "forcings"). And it turns out to be rather minor; less than 0.1 Watt/m2 when averaged out over the globe. In contrast, the current forcing from human-delivered CO2 is about 1.5 Watts/m2. Given that, the direct heating of the atmosphere due to power consumption has largely been left out of climate models.

A paper, released over the weekend by Nature Climate Change, suggests we might want to put it back in. The authors note some urban areas show rather intense warming from power consumption (estimates for Tokyo get as high as 1,590 Watt/m2), which might be enough to alter the regional air circulation. Given that similar sources dot the continents, it's possible that the regional effects add up to a noticeable global shift.

The authors did a modeling experiment, taking the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Community Atmosphere Model CAM3, and adding point heat sources to represent urban centers. Eighty-six of them were added, each at a point where urban centers are estimated to add more than 0.4 Watt/m2. The heat was added to the lowest layer of the atmosphere, below 130m. The models were given a standard set of human and natural influences and allowed to run for 100 years.

As expected, warming in general didn't change much. But the location and timing of the warming did. In the winter months (December, January, and February), some areas of the globe were up to 1K warmer than they were in control runs that didn't include the point heat sources. The warmest regions ended up over northeast North America, as well as more western regions of Arctic Canada. Another huge warm area was centered over Siberia.

These areas faded out during the spring. Over the summer and autumn, were actually somewhat cooler than the control simulations would indicate, although the changes outside of winter were much smaller in general.

The nice thing about this is it may explain some of the discrepancies between climate models and real-world data. Models have largely predicted that the Arctic would warm faster than other regions, and reality has borne that out. But the real-world data indicates these areas are warming even faster than the models suggest they would, a discrepancy that has remained unexplained.

The models also show the weather phenomena we should expect to see associated with these changes, such as an area of low pressure in the Russian Arctic associated with a high-pressure region in central Asia. That combination explains how warmer air gets shifted north, and it provides an example of what we should be looking for to confirm the predictions based on this model.

The authors recognize their efforts are a first attempt, meant to highlight an area where we need more work. They note their model only incorporated about 42 percent of the global heat output from energy use (the rest would probably be more diffuse), and that we don't have a strong grip on the actual emissions in many urban areas. The implications are that a more refined model might do even better at matching model predictions to the actual warming we've observed.

In any case, they make a strong argument that the heat from energy use probably shouldn't be ignored. It may not change the trajectory of warming significantly, but it can apparently help shape where it hits the hardest.

This video does a pretty good job of communicating the impact of energy usage in a city the size of tokyo. Just looking out a train window can be pretty eye opening to someone who has never been to one of these megalopolises. The never ending density boggles the mind. Now that's a lot of humans! It's a good thing the japanese are fairly energy conscious.

You think it says what? Is it the only estimate of climate sensitivity you've ever seen? Are you aware that it's one of a great many? Do you know the difference between transient sensitivity and equilibrium sensitivity? You might have a little homework to do...

Pretending that a problem does not exist will not solve said problem. It just makes it that much harder to solve in the future when your grandchildren realize their ancestors screwed them over and left them with a mess they need to deal with.

Very interesting, but it is a little concerning that until now people have just widely ignored how power generation can impact the environment.

I don't find it that concerning. They prioritized their focus on what they thought were larger contributors at the time. New scientists, new data, new ideas, and new funding can all come along to change that equation and then you end up with new studies like this one.

Very interesting, but it is a little concerning that until now people have just widely ignored how power generation can impact the environment.

I don't find it that concerning. They prioritized their focus on what they thought were larger contributors at the time. New scientists, new data, new ideas, and new funding can all come along to change that equation and then you end up with new studies like this one.

Understandable, it's just the idea that after a cursory glance at data they just decided to ignore it, then it turns out be important begs the question of what else they are currently ignoring. In three years are we going to learn something new? I don't have a solution, short of more researchers, just the idea that major issues could have been looked at and found to be not important isn't a great sign.

Very interesting, but it is a little concerning that until now people have just widely ignored how power generation can impact the environment.

I don't find it that concerning. They prioritized their focus on what they thought were larger contributors at the time. New scientists, new data, new ideas, and new funding can all come along to change that equation and then you end up with new studies like this one.

Understandable, it's just the idea that after a cursory glance at data they just decided to ignore it, then it turns out be important begs the question of what else they are currently ignoring. In three years are we going to learn something new? I don't have a solution, short of more researchers, just the idea that major issues could have been looked at and found to be not important isn't a great sign.

Not sure what 'major issue' you're referring to since the study found that power generation is not a significant factor in GW, it's major affect is on how heat is distributed around the globe.

Very interesting, but it is a little concerning that until now people have just widely ignored how power generation can impact the environment.

I don't find it that concerning. They prioritized their focus on what they thought were larger contributors at the time. New scientists, new data, new ideas, and new funding can all come along to change that equation and then you end up with new studies like this one.

Understandable, it's just the idea that after a cursory glance at data they just decided to ignore it, then it turns out be important begs the question of what else they are currently ignoring. In three years are we going to learn something new? I don't have a solution, short of more researchers, just the idea that major issues could have been looked at and found to be not important isn't a great sign.

I feel confident that, yes, in three years we are, in fact, going to learn something new. Possibly several things. The likelihood that these things discredit the things we already know is tiny, but they may better explain things we don't know or refine the things we do. This particular story is a good example of a refinement, since it only addressed distribution of effects rather than the overall magnitude itself.

Pretending that a problem does not exist will not solve said problem. It just makes it that much harder to solve in the future when your grandchildren realize their ancestors screwed them over and left them with a mess they need to deal with.

First off, that was not what "g0m3r619" posted, if you feel you have to characterize someone, using quotes is not correct as you are not quoting anyone's words.

-- When the researchers at CICERO and the Norwegian Computing Center applied their model-- and statistics to analyse temperature readings from the air and ocean for the period ending-- in 2000, they found that climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration-- will most likely be 3.7°C, which is somewhat higher than the IPCC prognosis.

-- But the researchers were surprised when they entered temperatures and other data from -- the decade 2000-2010 into the model; climate sensitivity was greatly reduced to a “mere” 1.9°C.

-- Professor Berntsen says this temperature increase will first be upon us only after we reach-- the doubled level of CO2 concentration (compared to 1750) and maintain that level for an -- extended time, because the oceans delay the effect by several decades.

And if you found that scarey for some reason, read on a bit more and you find this...

-- Climate issues must be dealt with

-- Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project’s findings must not be construed as an excuse-- for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, -- however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously-- thought.

-- Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures -- within the next few years.

Understandable, it's just the idea that after a cursory glance at data they just decided to ignore it, then it turns out be important begs the question of what else they are currently ignoring. In three years are we going to learn something new? I don't have a solution, short of more researchers, just the idea that major issues could have been looked at and found to be not important isn't a great sign.

Pretending that a problem does not exist will not solve said problem. It just makes it that much harder to solve in the future when your grandchildren realize their ancestors screwed them over and left them with a mess they need to deal with.

First off, that was not what "g0m3r619" posted, if you feel you have to characterize someone, using quotes is not correct as you are quoting anyone's words.

-- When the researchers at CICERO and the Norwegian Computing Center applied their model-- and statistics to analyse temperature readings from the air and ocean for the period ending-- in 2000, they found that climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration-- will most likely be 3.7°C, which is somewhat higher than the IPCC prognosis.

-- But the researchers were surprised when they entered temperatures and other data from -- the decade 2000-2010 into the model; climate sensitivity was greatly reduced to a “mere” 1.9°C.

-- Professor Berntsen says this temperature increase will first be upon us only after we reach-- the doubled level of CO2 concentration (compared to 1750) and maintain that level for an -- extended time, because the oceans delay the effect by several decades.

And if you found that scarey for some reason, read on a bit more and you find this...

-- Climate issues must be dealt with

-- Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project’s findings must not be construed as an excuse-- for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, -- however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously-- thought.

-- Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures -- within the next few years.

Very interesting, but it is a little concerning that until now people have just widely ignored how power generation can impact the environment.

I don't find it that concerning. They prioritized their focus on what they thought were larger contributors at the time. New scientists, new data, new ideas, and new funding can all come along to change that equation and then you end up with new studies like this one.

Understandable, it's just the idea that after a cursory glance at data they just decided to ignore it, then it turns out be important begs the question of what else they are currently ignoring. In three years are we going to learn something new? I don't have a solution, short of more researchers, just the idea that major issues could have been looked at and found to be not important isn't a great sign.

No, after a "cursory" glance at the data they decided that it wasn't as important as other effects, so their first models should not use it. Then later on, when the simpler models had been created and tested and vetted, new people came by and decided they should try to add this effect and see if it made the model more accurate.

As expected, the results didn't change by very much, because the original people were right about it being a very small effect. But what did change seemed to change to match real life even better.

You're right that three years later we might learn something new, and a new model will be made. Those results will change by even less, but they'll be even closer to actual data.

In addition, sometimes someone will try an updated model, but the results will be less accurate! We'll learn cool stuff from that too, and then maybe the next model will be better.

I've read some of the poster "g0m3r619"'s posts in the past in the climate threads.

Are you saying that rather than responding to whatever was posted in the post you responded to, you're responding to something posted elsewhere in the past?

Well, quite frankly those posts are often basically the same thing in all their incarnations. That's the problem here: say something willfully ignorant, get "schooled" for it, so switch to another thread or response and start all over pretending it never happened. Eventually others *are* justified in ignoring them from the get-go. Reasonable discussion requires discussers amenable to reason.

I thought the larger problem of wind turbines was their long term impact on air currents. I wouldn't think that they'd generate more warming than, say, an equivalent capacity coal plant.

The wind turbine thing involved mixing warmer air down to the surface- i.e. increasing nighttime surface temperatures by stirring the atmosphere. Not a conversion of anything into heat energy.

I think you're missing the point. The end effect ascribed to the wind turbines was an small increase in regional (surface) temperatures which might possibly be large enough to cause noticeable changes in the regional circulation. The end effect of energy use (and loss as heat) in this study is a small increase in regional (surface) temperatures which might possibly be large enough to cause noticeable changes in the regional circulation, leading to noticeable global shifts.

Are you saying that rather than responding to whatever was posted in the post you responded to, you're responding to something posted elsewhere in the past?

How many times must the same comment from the same person be responded to? If it's just a game of "whoever posts last, wins" then what's the point of debate?

If you don't read what they posted, it might seem that way. But if that is your concern, just don't respond, it's advise as old as usenet.

Also, I don't think debate is even possible *unless* you read and respond to whatever they actually posted. If you delete all their text and rant at them, you are clearly not there for debate. And indeed, your behavior is no better than what you ascribe to them.

I'm usually in such a good mood until I read a climate change article. Afterward all I can think about is that I'm trapped on this planet with the people that are willfully destroying it and I can't get off. I wonder at what point it will be more cost effective to just move to Mars.

Understandable, it's just the idea that after a cursory glance at data they just decided to ignore it, then it turns out be important begs the question of what else they are currently ignoring. In three years are we going to learn something new? I don't have a solution, short of more researchers, just the idea that major issues could have been looked at and found to be not important isn't a great sign.

I know some are just dying to denigrate scientists and they are told to hate a carbon tax for some reason, but 6.6% of the total forcing is important?

Silliness aside, efficiency gains kill two birds with one stone and make waste heat even less...erm...important.

As an aside, I lack the saintlike patience of some commenters here, notably Wheels of Confusion (there are others) in dealing with people who post the same titbit about how we can't really know, or we need more time, or everyone forgot the Sun, or whatever today's jot of denial stems from. It's the same people, who are debunked time and time again, and then you dress it up as rational debate when we know that it's the furthest thing from that. The debate is largely over and has been for years. Overturning the mountain of evidence pointing toward Human caused climate change is going to require something extraordinary, or so fundamental that it was overlooked (and after a decade or so of close scrutiny, that'd be a surprise). We're now looking at fine tuning the models that are already fairly accurate.I'm tired of seeing the same excuses trotted out, so if I lack patience when reading them yet again, you'll have to look past my post.

In the grand scheme of things, it means very little.Life, in general, will adapt and survive.The universe, as a whole, will keep on steaming ahead.

Humankind might just be reduced to a singular passing blip in history if we, collectively, don't start looking ahead and trying to figure out this whole "long term survival" thing.

Honestly, mankind is at a state where we are conscious enough to understand that life on this itty bitty rock COULD be wiped-out or destroyed, and we have the rational power to direct our efforts into saving ourselves......

Yes, the ars attack squadron is always armed and ready. But if you think you're gonna change anyone's mind this way, can you explain why? You attack someone, they defend (regardless of the issue or what's right or wrong).

Quote:

so switch to another thread or response and start all over pretending it never happened.

Don't worry, the attack squadron is there already. Rarely do they have any comment on the article. Often the first comment in the comments is that 'the deniers will be coming out of the woodwork on this one' or something to that effect.

Quote:

Eventually others *are* justified in ignoring them from the get-go.

But they are not doing so. Wonder why not?

Quote:

Reasonable discussion requires discussers amenable to reason.

This applies equally to both sides, just in case you were not aware. And right now you and Gary are justifying acting unreasonable.

It's also interesting how I responded to the poster Dilbert and several others have responded as if I had responded to their text. Is everyone interchangeable here? Multiple accounts? What?

I don't think so, if I was not talking about g0m3r619, how could I be making excuses for them?

Quote:

However, I'll counter Gomer with this:

Gomer?

Quote:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-cicero.html

There. The balance has been reset.

Have you read it? It seems poor form to rebut something unreleased and unread, but that being said if you look at the graphs 1.9C is just slightly below the IPCC lower bounds. And several 'lines of evidence' are clustered there or very near there. The Instrumental Period includes 1.9C and below from the look of it, the Last Millennium signal seems centered about 1.9C. The Volcanic Eruptions range also includes 1.9C as does Combining Different Lines of Evidence.

Their result is not denied by many other lines of evidence, not according to skepticalscience.

Quote:

As an aside, I lack the saintlike patience of some commenters here, notably Wheels of Confusion (there are others) in dealing with people who post the same titbit about how we can't really know, or we need more time, or everyone forgot the Sun, or whatever today's jot of denial stems from.

Don't be so charitable, they seem to read the same thing no matter what is posted and usually respond with the same cut and paste. They seem don't spend much time on it and far from being patient their tag line seems to be not even wrong.

Quote:

It's the same people, who are debunked time and time again, and then you dress it up as rational debate when we know that it's the furthest thing from that.

That requires that both sides be rational.

Quote:

The debate is largely over and has been for years.

Has there ever been a debate?

Quote:

Overturning the mountain of evidence pointing toward Human caused climate change is going to require something extraordinary, or so fundamental that it was overlooked (and after a decade or so of close scrutiny, that'd be a surprise). We're now looking at fine tuning the models that are already fairly accurate.

So why get so upset?

Quote:

I'm tired of seeing the same excuses trotted out, so if I lack patience when reading them yet again, you'll have to look past my post.

Yes, the ars attack squadron is always armed and ready. But if you think you're gonna change anyone's mind this way, can you explain why? You attack someone, they defend (regardless of the issue or what's right or wrong).

You're good (not that I ever doubted it). You've implied that the consensus side of the debate in the comments is engaging in a conspiracy to drive away dissenters, without stating it outright, and even hinted that they might be using sockpuppets, again without stating it outright.

I can't speak for any of the more frequent posters on this subject, but I doubt I'll convince, say, g0m3r or you. Posting a rebuttal to the "denier" side of the argument is for the benefit of anyone who reads the comments looking for more information or other perspectives. If the "deniers" went unchallenged, many would probably get the impression that the consensus wasn't supportable, no matter how weak the arguments against it.

As for why a post like g0m3r's gets dismissed so quickly as being made in bad faith... how relevant is it to this article in particular? He didn't address the article at all, just launched straight into an attack on AGW theory (or, sort of?). Whether it's a valid argument is another matter and has also been addressed. Do you honestly not see how a post like that comes off as trolling?

Quote:

Has there ever been a debate?

Yes, in the scientific community and on the internet. I think you were there for the latter.

I thought the larger problem of wind turbines was their long term impact on air currents. I wouldn't think that they'd generate more warming than, say, an equivalent capacity coal plant.

The wind turbine thing involved mixing warmer air down to the surface- i.e. increasing nighttime surface temperatures by stirring the atmosphere. Not a conversion of anything into heat energy.

I think you're missing the point. The end effect ascribed to the wind turbines was an small increase in regional (surface) temperatures which might possibly be large enough to cause noticeable changes in the regional circulation. The end effect of energy use (and loss as heat) in this study is a small increase in regional (surface) temperatures which might possibly be large enough to cause noticeable changes in the regional circulation, leading to noticeable global shifts.

I think that you are the one who is missing the point. Wind turbines only change where the heat exists (keeps it closer to the surface). Power generation and burning fuel creates new heat that did not exist before.

I thought the larger problem of wind turbines was their long term impact on air currents. I wouldn't think that they'd generate more warming than, say, an equivalent capacity coal plant.

The wind turbine thing involved mixing warmer air down to the surface- i.e. increasing nighttime surface temperatures by stirring the atmosphere. Not a conversion of anything into heat energy.

I think you're missing the point. The end effect ascribed to the wind turbines was an small increase in regional (surface) temperatures which might possibly be large enough to cause noticeable changes in the regional circulation. The end effect of energy use (and loss as heat) in this study is a small increase in regional (surface) temperatures which might possibly be large enough to cause noticeable changes in the regional circulation, leading to noticeable global shifts.

I think that you are the one who is missing the point. Wind turbines only change where the heat exists (keeps it closer to the surface). Power generation and burning fuel creates new heat that did not exist before.

Yes, but the entire point of this article is that the effect of amount of heat generation (insignificant) causes effects which are much larger than would be expected (significant). Therefore it is reasonable to wonder if an effect that has slightly less heat generation (zero) may also cause effects which are much larger than would be expected (significant).

Heh, I remember asking about heat pollution in comments a year or 2 ago and was brushed off, nice to see some information about it.

Also, what does this bode for wind turbines since they also cause localized warming?

I thought the larger problem of wind turbines was their long term impact on air currents. I wouldn't think that they'd generate more warming than, say, an equivalent capacity coal plant.

The wind turbine thing involved mixing warmer air down to the surface- i.e. increasing nighttime surface temperatures by stirring the atmosphere. Not a conversion of anything into heat energy.

And, although probably miniscule in the grand scheme of things, a wind turbine does sap energy from the atmosphere--in turning that wind force into mechanical energy to spin the generators. It's akin to a turbocharger taking heat energy from an internal combustion engine's exhaust gas and using it to charge the induction airflow.

...although probably miniscule in the grand scheme of things, a wind turbine does sap energy from the atmosphere--in turning that wind force into mechanical energy to spin the generators. It's akin to a turbocharger taking heat energy from an internal combustion engine's exhaust gas and using it to charge the induction airflow.

...the entire point of this article is that the effect of amount of heat generation (insignificant) causes effects which are much larger than would be expected (significant). Therefore it is reasonable to wonder if an effect that has slightly less heat generation (zero) may also cause effects which are much larger than would be expected (significant).

^^^ Well that's the implied thrust of the study, Dr. Jay's article, and much of this thread: the Arctic is warming and losing ice cover much faster than models have predicted. Here's an example where an heretofore neglected effect (electric power generation and resulting UHI) might contribute to understanding something that will have / does have a very large albedo effect. For that matter, concentrated urban NG and petrol consumption might also contribute; as the authors emphasized, theirs is but a first cut.

AnonymousRich, please go do your concern trolling somewhere else. You talk and talk about how horrible it is here.... please leave! Go away! You are the worst person on this forum to 'engage' with (there is no good-faith engage on your end, ever, just unending chatbot style flowery-written nothingness), and you should be ashamed of yourself. Just my opinion. You can obviously tell how many people here do not like to speak to you, or refuse to do so... you really think that's everyone else's problem, not yours?

They estimate, but it seems it would be fairly easy to measure direct heating directly. I can't find figures for Tokyo, but Japan uses almost a billion Kw/hr of electricity alone. With 377,900 km² of area, I get 2,646 watt hours per m². I bet I missed a conversion factor there.

That's only the electricity used. There's also the heat from all the gasoline, natural gas, coal, nuclear, etc. I'm really curious as to what their estimates were based on.

Very interesting, but it is a little concerning that until now people have just widely ignored how power generation can impact the environment.

It was ignored because the evidence to date continually shows it to be negligible. Would you rather they pump funds into a city by city survey or into research on the far more important climate forcers that overwhelmingly dominate?

Very interesting, but it is a little concerning that until now people have just widely ignored how power generation can impact the environment.

I don't find it that concerning. They prioritized their focus on what they thought were larger contributors at the time. New scientists, new data, new ideas, and new funding can all come along to change that equation and then you end up with new studies like this one.

Understandable, it's just the idea that after a cursory glance at data they just decided to ignore it, then it turns out be important begs the question of what else they are currently ignoring. In three years are we going to learn something new? I don't have a solution, short of more researchers, just the idea that major issues could have been looked at and found to be not important isn't a great sign.

Welcome to Science. Major issues can be overlooked because Science is a process of accumulating knowledge, i.e. by definition it assumes we overlook much and understand little.